Art_History_Essay_Compare_Contrast_Nude_Women_of_Art

A Comparison of Nude Women in Art through the Ages In my opinion one of the most beautiful and interesting subjects to paint, sculpt or mold is the nude human body, however over the years this unchanging form has taken on many different functions and meanings in art. To show how something constant can represent two completely different purposes and visual stimulations, I would like to compare two sculptures of nude women from Gardner’s Art through the Ages: A Global History. The two pieces of art I would like to analyze are the Venus of Willendorf (Kleiner page 17) and the Venus of Milo (Kleiner page 150). Although both of these sculptures were crafted to represent nude women in their era, each had a separate purpose in their culture and time period. The sculpture of the Venus of Willendorf was carved during the Paleolithic Period between 28,000- 25,000 BCE, when nudity and sex were not provocative but a necessity for procreation and the survival of the human race, thus her naked body was a symbol of the power of fertility. On the other hand, the sculpture of the Venus of Milo was carved in 150-125 BCE, approximately 27,850 years later, and her naked body was not an amulet for fertility or a sculpture to symbolize the reproduction of the human race. Although the Venus of Milo is also a nude sculpture of a woman, “the sculptor intentionally designed the work to tease the spectator,” (Kleiner 151) with her overtly sexual pose. The sculptor’s intention was to evoke a physical desire towards the goddess, through the use of beauty and perfect proportions, for the viewer’s pleasure. Personally, I find both of these pieces to be unique, amazingly crafted, thought provoking, and beautiful, however I prefer the Venus of Milo, because to me it symbolizes the birth of humanism, the beginning of true fine art, and the development of human emotion in art, while the Venus of Willendorf, simply represents the desperate desire to conceive for the purpose of survival. The amulet known as the Venus of Willendorf, which is approximately 11.1 centimeters high and 4 centimeters across, was found by the archaeologist Josef Szombathy in 1908 (Witcombe). The first part of its name “Venus” was taken from “the Greco-Roman Goddess of beauty and love, whom artists usually depicted nude. The name is inappropriate however because it is doubtful that the Old Stone Age figurines represented this or any deity” (Kleiner 17). The Second part of its name comes from the location in which the sculpture was found, Willendorf Austria, however the stone in which the Venus is carved from is a fine porous oolitic limestone which is not found in that region, leading art historians and archaeologists to believe it was carried by a prehistoric man or woman to Austria. This however is not surprising because in the time of the Paleolithic era, humans were nomads, meaning they traveled from place to place looking for food, shelter and water so it would have been easy for them to move items from place to place with them. It is assumed that this figurine was not only a symbol of fertility but also a good luck amulet carried by a woman to conceive and thus produce offspring to increase the tribe’s numbers. The Venus of Willendorf dates back to 28,000 -25,000 BCE and is said to be one of the first representations of a nude woman found and documented in art history (Witcombe). However, more interesting is the fact that she is so shapely and abstract due to the lack of proficient carving tools and the lack of understanding in depicting the human form. This statue is beautiful however not because of its perfection and in its simplicity and flaws. Her figure round and curvaceous is a celebration of health and fertility which in the Paleolithic time were both very important for survival and power. And both her size and nudity represent that fact that she was meant to fit into your hand for easy traveling and that she was a powerful statue that brought prehistoric women fertility. Although she is carved completely naked and her feminine parts are exaggerated, she was not created to simple be art, but to be useful first and art second. She was probably not worshiped or appreciated for the craftsmanship or the personal style of the sculpture, but rather for her ability to give good luck, strength, and fertility to the women who owned her. The Venus of Willendorf is thus the perfect example of how nudity can serve a purpose beyond the superficial and sexual level. Although exposed from head to toe this tiny yet beautiful portrayal of a prehistoric women is in no way erotic, provocative, or of a sexual nature due to its lack of sophistication, perfect proportions, and the technical skill and tools necessary to evoke that type of physical desire from a piece of art. The Venus of Milo, also known as Aphrodite of Milos, was carved by Alexandros of Antioch-on-the-Meander in Greece. In contrast with the small hand held statue of the Venus of Willendorf, this statue is larger than most real women standing approximately 6’7” high, almost perfectly sculpted from marble. This sculpture stands out to most that come across it because in the time it was carved around 150-125 BCE it was one of only a handful of sculptures of a Goddess that was depicted almost completely exposed (Clark). Additionally, it was not only a nude sculpture of Aphrodite but it was a very overwhelmingly sexual sculpture due to the positioning of her slipping robe and the originally placement of her arms before they were broken off, her right hand barely clutching her falling drapery, and her left hand holding the apple Paris gave her for being the most beautiful Goddess of them all (Kleiner). The statue was originally carved to provoke the audience to feel a physical desire for this perfectly proportioned goddess of love. Unlike the carving of the Venus of Willendorf, there is nothing abstract or nonrepresentational about this piece, she is sculpted exquisitely mirroring the human form in its most perfect proportions making this piece most definitely representational of the natural world. The artists clearly had a grasp of both the material he was carving in, marble, as well as access to advanced carving tools and a higher knowledge and understanding for the world, than the prehistoric man who carved the Venus of Willendorf. The Venus of Milo was created in the Hellenistic period, which had the tendency of taking traditional themes in Greek sculpture, such as drapery, and approaching them in novel ways such as adding a sense of eroticism to the Greek goddess by using this such drapery in a way that provokes the spectator and creates a very sexual draw or desire for the goddess (Janson). Another notable characteristic of the Venus of Milo is the attention to fine detail that was used in creating this masterpiece. You can see every fold in the cloth and all the tension in the muscles and even the expression in her face, Alexandor, had a way of turning this very hard material into a soft and elegant surface that makes for a beautiful and immensely sophisticated piece. It is this sophistication that draws me to this piece more so that the Venus of Willendorf because it shows a real connection and understanding of the natural or human world. Additionally it is these erotic Greek sculptures that foreshadow the evolvement of humans toward a civilization heavily based upon emotion, critical thinking, and the development of education and the fine arts, all of which are characteristics that distinguish humans from the animal kingdom. In my opinion there are many elements and principles of design that I could point out in the sculpture of the Venus of Willendorf however the three elements that stand out the most are shape, value, and texture and the three principles are scale/proportion, contrast, and emphasis/subordination. First of all you can very clearly see the element of shape in the sculpture because she is very curvy made up of almost all round or spherical shapes. Her head and breasts and stomach and bottom are all just spheres molded together to create this very organic and earthly looking goddess. It is this shapeliness that causes the spectator to get this sense of softness from the sculpture even though it is made out of a limestone. It is also this round busty shape that makes the viewer instantly think of a pregnant woman and thus fertility, which means the sculptor successfully portrayed this woman as being a powerful symbol of reproduction. Second my eyes are drawn to the Venus of Willendorf because of the way light plays off of her body, she is so curvy and there is such contrast in her shape that when light hits her it creates light highlights and dark shadows giving the object depth and volume even when portrayed in a 2-dementional form such as in a photograph. Although the color of the sculpture is almost entirely the same redish brown all over, the values of the color range from a very light redish brown to a very dark redish brown, because of the deep crevices and variety in her form such as her tiny soft triangular legs, her large round stomach and her tiny braided basket-like head. And third, the very material she is carved out of has a textural quality to it that adds character and a sense of unrefined beauty and simplicity. For instance, the medium used is a very bumpy and rough looking stone with a lot of texture. Additionally the artist created his own texture on her head where the he carved a pattern almost like that of a woven basket to give the head a very interesting look, that makes you want to touch and feel it. The first principle that stood out to me in the sculpture of the Venus of Willendorf was scale/proportion. By making the statue small, only 11.1 centimeters tall it becomes more functional because you can easily travel with it because of its small scale. Additionally the use of proportion also defines it’s function in that the exaggeration of the female reproductive organs make it very obvious that this goddess was meant to promote fertility and conception. The second principle that defines this piece of art in my opinion was contrast, because there are very many contrasting shapes, textures, and values. When you look at the picture there are so many things that are contrasting that it makes the tiny sculpture really pop off the page, from the contrast of its tiny arms and legs to its large bosoms and stomach, to the contrast of the basket-like woven texture on her head to the more smooth surface of the body, and from the contrast of the value due to the way light interacts with the immense depth and shape the object has. Lastly, the use of emphasis and subordination in this piece is exquisite because there is a clear focal point or emphasis on the stomach and reproductive organs to emphasize the function as a fertility goddess, and there is a definite lack of focus or subordination on the arms and legs which are much smaller than the rest of her body. It is all of these elements and principles of design that allow the Venus of Willendorf to represent a functional usage of nudity in art. On the other hand the Venus of Milos uses the elements and principles of design both similarly and differently in order to represent a nonfunctional sculpture that represents nudity in an entirely different manor. This piece uses nudity as well as the elements shape, texture, and value as well as the principles scale/proportion, contrast, and emphasis/subordination in order to successfully provoke an emotional and physical longing in the viewer. First you can clearly see shape used in this sculpture through the curves of Aphrodites body, hips, breasts, and rounded head. You can see rounded square shapes in the muscle definition of her abdomen, as well as jagged triangular shapes in her draping cloth. Also the shape of her body is perfectly proportioned after the shape of an actual human body which instantly allows the observer to recognize and connect with the subject of the sculpture on a superficial or physical level. In addition to shape, another element of design that was executed perfectly in this sculpture was value by using shape and varying depths and dimensions in the stone when sculpting her robe and muscles, the artist has allowed the light to hit her body and create shadows and highlights on her abdomen and within her drapery that makes her look very real and perfectly 3-demensional even in a 2-demensional picture. Even though the Venus of Milos is entirely the same color, a grayish white marble, the usage of texture, and shape, creates value throughout the piece that makes it seem as though there are parts of the sculpture that are white and parts of the sculpture that are black even though in actuality it is just how the light plays on her angles. The last element that is used in this sculpture is texture. In the cloth and the draping there is so much texture that it looks as if the hard marble surface is actually a soft flowing gown slipping from the hips of a beautiful Aphrodite. The texture of the marble is so smooth across her abdomen that the contrast with her draping cloth and swept back hair really makes the goddess seem real. In addition to these elements of design Alexandor also used many principles of design to successfully render a beautiful nude sculpture. To me the most noticeable principle of design is emphasis and subordination, although the sculpture is missing both of her original arms, it seems to me that even without them the focus is clearly, the extremely low seductive drapery that is slung across Aphrodited naked body, it makes her seem very sexual and provocative more so than most sculptures of this time period. In contrast the focal point is so obviously her low rise robe that you almost don’t even notice that she is missing both of her arms, and even her face seems like an afterthought because of the detail and emphasis put into the drapery and abdomen region. Also noticeable is the principle of contrast, although one form of contrast can be the usage of mass and shape to create light and dark shadows throughout the sculpture, for me the biggest contrast is between her smooth soft simple abdomen and the ridged complex folding of the cloth along her hips and legs. The contrast in these textures is what causes the focal point as well as interest in the sculpture, it give the viewer something to think about and look at. And finally, the last principle that I find important in this nude sculpture is scale/proportion. Being a Greek sculpture it is perfectly proportioned to represent the ideal human body and it is these proportions that make the sculpture look so natural and human and calm. Because everything is perfectly scaled to fit together when you look at this piece of art you see unity even when there is variety in texture and shape. When I look at this piece I do not see a leg, and a body, and a head I see a beautiful human because not one body part stand out above the rest. In addition she is so large in scale that it make her beauty more impacting in my opinion because she is 6’7” tall which is larger than the average woman so I could imagine if I was standing in front of her she would truly look like a Goddess rather than just another human. It is her large scale that magnifies her god-like perfection. All in all I find the Venus of Milos to be a great example of the use of nudity for pure art and visual stimulation without any functional use in daily life. She was created only for the purpose of being a piece of art and I find this refreshing because there is a level of evolution that happens when you go from creating tools that are artistic to creating art for the sake of beauty. The Venus of Milo has a level of sophisticated beauty in her erotic and sensual pose, it marks the beginning of a different type of art being created, art that is for the purpose of arousing the viewer. In conclusion, although both pieces of art address the elements and principles of design, are of the same subject matter (women), and are nude sculptures, they are far from being considered the same because they both address different functions and aspects of society. Comparing and contrasting these two pieces of art shows you how the same subject matter, nude women, can be completely different in almost every way. The Venus of Willendorf was abstract, small, not sensual and was created to be functional where as the Venus of Milos was truly representational, large, very sensual and was created only to be appreciated as art. Even though I find both pieces to be exceptional I do prefer the Venus of Milos for its complexity and ability to stand on it’s on as pure fine art. Bibliography Clark, Kenneth. The Nude: A study in Ideal Form. The A.W. Mellon Lectures in Fine Arts. Princeton: Princeton University Press,1956. Janson, H. W. History of Art: A survey of the Major Visual Arts from the Dawn of History to Present Day. New York: Harry N. Abrams Incorporated,1977. Kleiner, Fred S. Gardner’s Art Through The Ages: A global history. 13th ed. Boston: The Thomson Corporation, 2009. Witcombe, Christopher. Women in Prehistory: the Venus of Willendorf. Women in Ancient Art. 2003. .